페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Mr. BECKER. We have never recognized it. We have always reserved our rights, so to that extent we have challenged them.

Senator GREEN. They don't recognize our rights? Mr. BECKER. Oh, yes, indeed, Senator Green. Senator GREEN. Formally? Mr. BECKER. Formally. Senator GREEN. All of them? Mr. BECKER. I am pretty certain all of them. I would have to check the record on that. We have made it perfectly plain that we recognize no claims of sovereignty in the Antarctic.

Senator GREEN. You made that statement, yes, but have they been notified that you don't recognize any claims of sovereignty?

Mr. BECKER. Yes. We have made a public announcement which is addressed to everybody.

Senator GREEN. That isn't what I asked. I asked whether you had notified them that you don't recognize their claims of sovereignty.

Mr. BECKER. I am not prepared at this moment to specify the particular notices, but I shall undertake to put that in the record.

Senator GREEN. If you will kindly look that up and put it in the record later. Mr. BECKER. Right. (The material referred to appears at the end of the testimony.)

NEW AGENCY AS CENTRALIZED SOURCE OF SPACE INFORMATION Senator GREEN. On page 19 you speak of—you are comparing two different things. You say:

The difference would be that we would have a central point within the Government to which we could turn for enlightenment on nonmilitary research and developments in spaceand so forth.

Now does it make any difference—there is a difference. What is the difference? You don't say which side is which. You are not making it clear what you had intended to say, and that is why I am asking the question.

Mr. BECKER. At the present time, as I understand, Senator Green, there is no one point within the Government to which we could turn and say, “We would like information about all civilian research activities with respect to outer space.As I understand the contemplation of this bill, after the space agency is created, we would have such a central point.

Senator GREEN. If that is what you mean, the difference between the proposed bill and the existingMr. BECKER. That is correct. Senator GREEN. Is that then there would be a central point. Mr. BECKER. That is correct. Senator GREEN. There is a need for a new bill. Mr. BECKER. Right.

Senator GREEN. Thank you. I am much obliged to you for answering these questions, some of which you may think were unnecessary. I assure you it helps to elucidate to those like myself who are not as familiar with the subject as you are.

I will ask the counsel now if he has any questions to ask you.
Mr. VANCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.

Senator GREEN. Then I will thank you for your appearance here today. You have heard the announcement about the next meeting of this committee, and I declare this meeting adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:27 a. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, May 15, 1958.) (The material for the record, supplied by Mr. Becker, is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D. C., May 19, 1958. Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Special Committee on Space and Astronautics,

United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: When I appeared before the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics on May 14, 1958, I undertook in the course of the hearings to supply several items to the committee in writing subsequently.

The chairman requested a memorandum giving the Department's views on a suggestion that language be added to the administration bill making clear that any agreements for international cooperation would be negotiated and concluded “under the direction of the President.” A memorandum on this matter is attached as annex A.

At page 641 of the transcript the chairman inquired as to the date when the United States made its initial proposal on the peaceful use of outer space. That date was January 14, 1957.

Later in the hearings last Wednesday, the chairman requested a record of the proposals made and negotiations conducted by the United States concerning the use of outer space for scientific and peaceful purposes only. These matters are covered in a memorandum attached as annex B.

Finally, at the hearings Senator Green requested the submission of a statement concerning claims to sovereignty over areas in Antarctica and concerning the United States attitude toward such claims. A memorandum and accompanying map concerning this question are attached as annex C.

I hope that these materials will be helpful to the committee, and trust that you will not fail to call upon me if I could provide any assistance in the future. Yours sincerely,

LOFTUS BECKER, The Legal Adviser.

ANNEX A

AGREEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN PEACEFUL EXPLOITATION

OF SPACE

It is understood that the administration bill to create a Space Agency now contains the following language on international cooperation:

“The Agency may under foreign policy guidance by the Department of State engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to agreements negotiated by the Department of State, or approved by that Department."

The suggestion has been made that a phrase be added to this language to state expressly that any such agreements would be negotiated and concluded "under the direction of the President.” In the view of the Department of State, affirmation of this principle is, of course, completely acceptable. All international agreements are negotiated and concluded "under the direction of the President." This would continue to be true whether or not the suggested phrase were to be included in the draft legislation. For this reason to write the phrase into the legislation would be unnecessary and superfluous.

There might be some undesirability in including the words "under the direction of the President” to the extent that doing this implies that, in the absence of such language, agreements were, or might be, negotiated and concluded otherwise than “under the direction of the President."

On balance, the Department of State believes it would be preferable to omit the suggested words. If it is felt that the point requires specific attention in connection with enactment of the proposed legislation, it might be taken care of through an appropriate statement in the committee report.

ANNEX B I. TEXT OF UNITED STATES PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE CONTROL OF OBJECTS

ENTERING OUTER SPACE 1. Proposal on outer space by Ambassador Lodge in United Nations General Assembly, January 14, 1957:

“Fourth: Scientists in many nations are now proceeding with efforts to propel objects through outer space and to travel in the distant areas beyond the earth's atmospheric envelope. The scope of these experiments is variously indicated in the terms: "earth satellites,' 'intercontinental missiles,' 'long-range unmanned weapons', and 'space platforms'. No one can now predict with certainty what will develop from man's excursion in this new field. But it is clear that if this advance into the unknown is to be a blessing rather than a curse the efforts of all nations in this field need to be brought within the purview of a reliable armaments control system. The United States proposes that the first step toward the objective of assuring that future developments in outer space would be devoted exclusively to peaceful and scientific purposes would be to bring the testing of such objects under international inspection and participation. The United States earth satellite presently planned for the International Geophysical Year is an example of an open project devoted exclusively to scientific purposes and developed with the knowledge and approbation of the scientists of the nations represented in the International Geophysical Year. In this matter, as in other matters, we are ready to participate in fair, balanced, reliable systems of control.”

2. Proposal on outer space set forth in August 29, 1957, working paper by the delegations of Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States in United Nations Subcommittee on Disarmament in London:

“VI. The control of objects entering outer space: All parties to the convention agree that within 3 months after the entry into effect of the convention they will cooperate in the establishment of a technical committee to study the design of an inspection system which would make it possible to assure that the sending of objects through outer space will be exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes." II. SUBSEQUENT UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE PEACEFUL

USE OF OUTER SPACE 1. Ambassador Lodge's October 10, 1957, statement on outer space:

“5. Control outer space weapons: Finally, Mr, Chairman, we seek agreement on ways to control the newest creation of science--the outer space missile. Like atomic energy, this device can serve the purpose of peace or it can be used to blow us to bits. We have only begun to learn about its possibilities, but we already know that the prospect of outer space missiles armed with nuclear warheads is too dangerous to ignore.

“Mr. Chairman, in 1946 when the United States alone had nuclear weapons, it proposed to the United Nations a plan to insure the peaceful use of the new and tremendous force of atomic energy by putting it under international control. The world knows now that a decade of anxiety and trouble could have been avoided if that plan had been accepted. We now have a similar opportunity to harness for peace man's new pioneering efforts in outer space. We must not miss this chance. We have therefore proposed that a technical committee be set up to work out an inspection system which will assure the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful and scientific purposes. If there is general agreement to proceed with this study on a multilateral basis, the United States is prepared to join in this initiative without awaiting the conclusion of negotiations on the other substantive proposals.”

2. Twenty-four-power resolution adopted by the General Assembly, November 14, 1957—section on outer space:

“1. 'Urges that the states concerned, and particularly those which are members of the subcommittee of the Disarmament Commission, give priority to reaching a disarmament agreement which, upon its entry into force, will provide for the following:

(f) The joint study of an inspection system designed to insure that the sending of objects through outer space shall be exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes.''

3. Eisenhower reply to Bulganin of January 12, 1958-sections on outer space and technical committee study:

“(a) I propose that we agree that outer space should be used only for peaceful purposes.

We face a decisive moment in history in relation to this matter. 25484-58-pt. 2 -7

Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now using outer space for the testing of missiles designed for military purposes. The time to stop is now.

“I recall to you that a decade ago, when the United States had a monopoly of atomic weapons and of atomic experience, we offered to renounce the making of atomic weapons and to make the use of atomic energy an international asset for peaceful purposes only. If only that offer had been accepted by the Soviet Union, there would not now be the danger from nuclear weapons which you describe.

“The nations of the world face today another choice perhaps even more momentous than that of 1948. That relates to the use of outer space. Let us this time, and in time, make the right choice, the peaceful choice.

There are about be perfected and produced powerful new weapons which, availing of outer space, will greatly increase the capacity of the human race to destroy itself. If indeed it be the view of the Soviet Union that we should not go on producing ever newer types of weapons, can we not stop the production of such weapons which would use or, more accurately, misuse, outer space, now for the first time opening up as a field of man's exploration? Should not outer space be dedicated to the peaceful uses of mankind and denied to the purposes of war? That is my proposal * * *

“The capacity to verify the fulfillment of commitments is of the essence in all these matters, including the reduction of conventional forces and weapons, and it would surely be useful for us to study together through technical groups what are the possibilities in this respect upon which we could build if we then decided to do so. These technical studies could, if you wish, be undertaken without commitment as to ultimate acceptance, or as to the interdependence, of the propositions involved. It is such technical studies of the possibilities of verification and supervision that The United Nations has proposed as a first step. I believe that this is a first step that would promote hope in both of our countries and in the world. Therefore I urge that this first step be undertaken.

4. Eisenhower reply to Bulganin of February 15, 1958–section pertaining to outer space:

“Another new idea was that outer space should be perpetually dedicated to peaceful purposes. You belittle this proposal as one made to gain strategic advantages for the United States. Mr. Khrushchev in his Minsk speech said, “This means they want to prohibit that which they do not possess.'

"Since the record completely disproves that uncalled-for statement, may we now hope between us to consider and devise cooperative international procedures to give reality to the idea of use of outer space for peace only.

"When the United States alone possessed atomic weapons and the Soviet Union possessed none, the United States proposed to forego its monopoly in the interest of world peace and security. We are prepared to take the same attitude now in relation to outer space. If this peaceful purpose is not realized, and the worse than useless race of weapons goes on, the world will have only the Soviet Union to blame, just as it has only the Soviet Union to blame for the fact that atomic and nuclear power are now used increasingly for weapons purposes instead of being dedicated wholly to peaceful uses as the United States proposed a decade ago.

°«The Soviet Union refused to cooperate in tackling the problem of international control of atomic energy when that problem was in its infancy. Consequently, it has now become too late to achieve totally effective control although there can be, as we propose, a controlled cessation of further weapons testing and of the manufacture of fissionable material for weapons purposes. But, as your government said on May 10, 1955, a total ‘ban' on atomic and hydrogen weapons could not now be enforced because the possibility would be open to a potential aggressor to accumulate stocks of atomic and hydrogen weapons for a surprise atomic attack on peace-loving states.'

“A terrible new menace can be seen to be in the making. That menace is to be found in the use of outer space for war purposes. The time to deal with that menace is now. It would be tragic if the Soviet leaders were blind or indifferent toward this menace as they were apparently blind or indifferent to the atomic and nuclear menace at its inception a decade ago.

“If there is a genuine desire on the part of the Soviet leaders to do something more than merely to talk about the menace resulting from what you describe as 'the production of ever newer types of weapons,' let us actually do what even now would importantly reduce the scope of nuclear warfare, both in terms of checking the use of fissionable material for weapons purposes and in wholly eliminating the newest types of weapons which use outer space for human destruction.”

5. Eisenhower reply to Premier Khrushchev of April 8, 1958-section on undertaking technical studies which would include outer space:

“The United States is also prepared, in advance of agreement upon any one or more of the outstanding “disarmament propositions, to work with the Soviet Union, and others as appropriate, on the technical problems involved in international controls. We both recognize that international control would be necessary. Indeed, your present letter to me speaks of the establishment of the necessary international control for the discontinuance of tests.''

6. Eisenhower reply to Premier Khrushchev of April 28, 1958–section on outer space and technical studies:

“The United States is determined that we will ultimately reach an agreement on disarmament. In my letter of April 8, I again proposed an internationally supervised cutoff of the use of new fissionable meterials for weapons purposes and the reduction of existing weapons stocks by transfer to peaceful purposes; an agreed limitation or suspension of testing; 'open skies,' and the international use of outer space for peaceful purposes.

As an effective means of moving toward ultimate agreement on these matters and other disarmament matters, I proposed that we start our technical people to work immediately upon the practical problems involved. These studies were called for by the United Nations General Assembly. They would include the practical problems of supervision and control which, you and I agree, are in any event indispensable to dependable disarmament agreements.

“The solution of these practical problems will take time. I am unhappy that valuable time is now being wasted.

"You say that we must first reach a final political agreement before it is worthwhile even to initiate the technical studies. But such studies would, in fact, facilitate the reaching of the final agreement you state you desire.”

ANNEX C

CLAIMS IN ANTARCTICA The following countries have asserted territorial claims in Antarctica: France, Norway, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, Great Britain, and Australia. These claims are as follows:

1. Argentina: Between longitudes 25° W. and 74° W., and south of latitude 60° S.

2. Chile: Between longitudes 53° W. and 90° W.; northern limit unspecified.

3. United Kingdom: Between longitudes 20° W. and 500 W. and south of latitude 50° S.; and between longitudes 50° W. and 80° W. and south of latitude 58° s.

4. New Zealand: Between longitudes 160° E. and 150° W. and south of latitude 60° s.

5. Australia: Between longitudes 45° E. and 136° E. and south of latitude 60° S.; and between longitudes 142° E. and 160° E, and south of latitude 60° S.

6. France: Between longitudes 136° E. and 142° E. and south of latitude 60° S.

7. Norway: Between longitudes 20° W. and 45° E. Northern and southern limits of the claim are uncertain since the Norwegian proclamation refers only to the "mainland coast in the Antarctic” between the two specified east and west limits as well as “the land lying within this coast and the environing sea. * * *"

The only sector remaining unclaimed is the sector between latitude 150° W. and 90° W.

The United States has reserved its rights in Antarctica both in communications to particular countries and in general statements of United States position. The following are examples:

In a note of February 24, 1934, to the British Ambassador in Washingtor regarding the 1934 Byrd Expedition and alleged British sovereignty in Antarctica, the Department of State reserved all of the rights of the United States or its citizens.

On May 16, 1939, our Ambassador in Paris was instructed to transmit a note to the French Minister stating, in substance, that the United States did not recognize the French claim in Antarctica.

On January 16, 1939, the Department of State transmitted a note regarding the Norwegian claim in Antarctica to the Norwegian Embassy in Washington reserving all the rights of the United States and its citizens.

In a statement of policy made by the Department of State on November 10, 1939, in connection with the third Antarctic Expedition of Admiral Byrd, the Department reiterated its position of nonrecognition of territorial claims, quoting a note of Secretary of State Hughes to the Norwegian Minister of April 2, 1924, in

« 이전계속 »